When is hi-rez overkill?

[ArnoldLayne]

Hi guys, this thread has been dead for way to long, don't you think?

I just wanted to add some observations which I hope some at least find slightly interesting. It's about gear dependency for the hi-res issue.

After my upgrade to HDMI sources last year, I have now managed to save it up for a decent receiver. It's four pinholes above my previous one and has a wonderful "all-channel stereo" program for CD listening. My very first impression, which will surprise you, has been the vast improvement for low-res and non-surround material, to the point that it has become much more difficult to distinguish it from hi-res and surround. The explanations for the latter might be several:

- All sound processing is now made in the same component (the receiver) and sources' influence is much reduced to almost none.

- DSP and DACs are superior to everything I had before. There should be no relevant shortcomings for any type of material.

- With both digital and analog stages as perfect as they can be (for me and my income), I'm getting more aware of how my puny, still-to-be-dumped loudspeakers and their placement affects he sound.

Anyway... being a true believer, I am of course not going to repent, not just yet...

As you might read between my lines, after only two weeks I am still quite overwhelmed with the sound improvements and this is currently the strongest part of my listening experiences. It is of course overshadowing the differences I usually hear between high and standard resolutions. Interestingly, I am again becoming able to appreciate 24 bits over16, dynamics are there for sure. I wouldn't extend this to being proof that only bit depth matters. But I guess we can say that it matters more, or at least is easier to identify for the human ear.

Another thing that strikes me is that with my current gear I have less use for pure DSD, albeit being an important condition when I chose which receiver to buy. It is basically my puny loudspeakers' fault, plus a speaker placement some of you might classify as "weird". A very decent DSD2PCM conversion and moderate but exquisit sound processing is by now better for me than the clean sound of SACD. As you might guess, speaker upgrade is on my wish list. But sadly it has to wait and meanwhile I sacrifice.

As I said before, I am not changing standpoint in the hi-res debate. But these latest experiencies has brought me a better understanding of the opinions on the other side of the trenches. Not that I doubted the theories on room acoustics etc. before, but it has been interesting to see (hear) some things myself. On the other hand I would like to make a point regarding the circumstances for which we consider hi-res and surround. Namely that it doesn't necessarily have to be a question of uttermost high-end gear. I have always seen it also as a way to improve a more humble setup, if it is chosen with care. Once upon a time I decided to get basic but DVD-A/SACD capable equipment instead of more expensive CD/stereo gear. This I have never regretted, despite the lack of albums edited in hi-res. In the light of this, it has also been an easy choice when commencing with the upgrade I'm doing right now. So far I must admit the relatively biggest improvements has been on the other side but I have no doubt about where all this eventually will end, when I eventually can go for new speakers too. Bottom line is that hi-res was very important in my former low end gear, has gotten less important in the current mix and will only regain fully it's (relative) importance when completing the upgrade.

 

[ssully]

Hi guys, this thread has been dead for way to long, don't you think?

I just wanted to add some observations which I hope some at least find slightly interesting. It's about gear dependency for the hi-res issue.

After my upgrade to HDMI sources last year, I have now managed to save it up for a decent receiver. It's four pinholes above my previous one and has a wonderful "all-channel stereo" program for CD listening.

"All channel stereo" is probably just mono from all channels. For something like surround synthesis, use DPL II, DTS Neo or the like,

My very first impression, which will surprise you, has been the vast improvement for low-res and non-surround material, to the point that it has become much more difficult to distinguish it from hi-res and surround. The explanations for the latter might be several:

- All sound processing is now made in the same component (the receiver) and sources' influence is much reduced to almost none.

Quite possible, since the same levels, delays, etc will be applied uniformly.

- DSP and DACs are superior to everything I had before. There should be no relevant shortcomings for any type of material.

DSP possibly but , DACs, unlikely to make a big difference.

- With both digital and analog stages as perfect as they can be (for me and my income), I'm getting more aware of how my puny, still-to-be-dumped loudspeakers and their placement affects he sound.

Loudspeaker choice, number, and placement pretty much always have a much greater audible effect on sound than D/A stages. Loudspeakers are by far the crudest 'devices' in a typical playback chain, in terms of their fidelity.

As you might read between my lines, after only two weeks I am still quite overwhelmed with the sound improvements and this is currently the strongest part of my listening experiences. It is of course overshadowing the differences I usually hear between high and standard resolutions. Interestingly, I am again becoming able to appreciate 24 bits over16, dynamics are there for sure.

No, not for sure, unless you actually (blind) test specifically for that.

I wouldn't extend this to being proof that only bit depth matters. But I guess we can say that it matters more, or at least is easier to identify for the human ear.

It is certainly easier to demonstrate as an audible effect, than redbook vs 'hi rez' sample rate difference, but TYPICALLY it makes no difference in a normal listening room with normal recorded matter at normal levels.

It matters during recording, production, and DSP, to keep accumulated rounding error from becoming audible.

Another thing that strikes me is that with my current gear I have less use for pure DSD, albeit being an important condition when I chose which receiver to buy. It is basically my puny loudspeakers' fault, plus a speaker placement some of you might classify as "weird". A very decent DSD2PCM conversion and moderate but exquisit sound processing is by now better for me than the clean sound of SACD. As you might guess, speaker upgrade is on my wish list. But sadly it has to wait and meanwhile I sacrifice.

If by 'clean' sound you mean no DSP, any difference you are hearing is more likely the application of DSP, not PCM conversion per se.

 

[ArnoldLayne]

I won't get into polemics road to nowhere, just a couple of clarifying notes:

- In this case "All channel stereo" is not a mono mode. It carries original channel separation further on to the whole speaker set. There are of course other modes too, I've found the most extreme to be "THX neural surround". They're great fun and don't degrade sound the way my former receiver did, and remind me more of those decent upmixes floating around. But I like the "All channel stereo" because it maintains the original mix while filling the room with it.

- Regarding SACD, I am actually saying that with my current setup I prefer DSD2PCM conversion to benefit from the splendid DSP treatment of my new receiver. This was not the case when making the same choice for my old entry level multiformat player. Its DSD2PCM conversion was in fact quite horrid so I never used it, despite sacrifying speaker level, distance settings and bass management. Anyway, I'm not confusing PCM conversion with other DSP actions. With my puny speakers and their "unorthodox" placement it's quite easy to spot what the DSP does and does not do.

 

[ssully]

I won't get into polemics road to nowhere, just a couple of clarifying notes:

- In this case "All channel stereo" is not a mono mode. It carries original channel separation further on to the whole speaker set.

If it isn't actually just duplicating channel content (e.g., duplicating mono all around, or left front content in left rear, right front in right rear), then it's some sort of surround synthesis DSP -- but not one I've heard of. What AVR are you using for this?

- Regarding SACD, I am actually saying that with my current setup I prefer DSD2PCM conversion to benefit from the splendid DSP treatment of my new receiver. This was not the case when making the same choice for my old entry level multiformat player. Its DSD2PCM conversion was in fact quite horrid

it's really unlikely that you could 'hear' the effect of DSD-->PCM conversion per se, much less that the effect would be so degradative as to be 'horrid'. Typically such conversions are done from DSD to 88kHz/24bit PCM, but even a conversion to 44kHz/16bit could not be assumed to be audible under most conditions (as Meyer & Moran's tests demonstrated)

 

[ArnoldLayne]

The receiver is an Onkyo TX-NR3007. Yes, I believe its "All channel stereo" is a standard scheme such as FL->SL, FR->SR, FL+FR->C and bass management of course. Quite straightforward, while some more advanced schemes on this receiver tend to move around certain instruments. As I said, the latter can be quite fun but they diverge from the original mix.

Believe me, the DSD2PCM conversion in my old Pioneer DV-565A might be classified as horrid. The main channel circuit is not so bad in this player, but when DSD is passed through its DSP bad things happen. Same goes for the surround channels which are always converted in this model. I don't know why it happens, but it might be something as simple as clipping. This has been measured for another player, Oppo DV-980, which inevitably boosts 3dB during conversion DSD to PCM and makes certain albums pass the limits.